Their mothers, apparently. Preterm births are account for the high mortality rate, and among the cause of that are smoking and drinking during pregnancy, substance abuse and diabetes. Perhaps it's the lack of education that results in mothers using drugs (though legal drugs are pushed by their "healthcare" providers) or eating improperly (though the US govt has always maintained a policy of supporting the biggest manufacturers of the worst foods). But then, when education focuses on feel good studies aimed at building "self esteem" it's no wonder nothing is learned. Not to mention, pop culture in the US glorifies ignorance.

Yet liberals continue to attack Christian foster and adoption agencies because they are Christian and only place children in homes with a mother and a father.

Click to expand...

You just made my point for me. That state is hurting for homes for these kids. Are qualified loving homes being overlooked because agencies will only place in “traditional” homes?

I have friends who are a lesbian couple. Christian, very active in their church. They’ve been together over 40 years. Adopted 3 kids - older kids, not babies, and American Indian - two of them are actual brothers.

Not much demand for older kids of any ethnic background. Those kids were all at high risk for aging out of the system. Instead they got a loving home and family. Definitely not lax parents either - those kids went to church, went to school, did their homework and learned manners and respect. They grew up to be good people.

Oh and they didn’t “turn the kids gay.” The couple now has a bunch of grandkids and their first great grandchild.

Preterm births are account for the high mortality rate, and among the cause of that are smoking and drinking during pregnancy, substance abuse and diabetes. Perhaps it's the lack of education that results in mothers using drugs (though legal drugs are pushed by their "healthcare" providers) or eating improperly (though the US govt has always maintained a policy of supporting the biggest manufacturers of the worst foods).

Click to expand...

Why so high in those states? In my state it’s less than half of that. Lack of affordable prenatal care? Lack of health care in general? Poor education? Poverty? Are all the country’s smokers, drunks and addicts in those states, and if so, why?

Healthy food IS more expensive.

If the mother is diabetic her health care provider should be treating and monitoring closely for her own safety.

Mother doesn’t have insurance and can’t afford health care or prenatal care ? Why the f*** not? We’re one of the richest countries in the world, no excuse for that. We can do better.

These states need to clean up their own back yards instead of adding to their problems.

You just made my point for me. That state is hurting for homes for these kids. Are qualified loving homes being overlooked because agencies will only place in “traditional” homes?

I have friends who are a lesbian couple. Christian, very active in their church. They’ve been together over 40 years. Adopted 3 kids - older kids, not babies, and American Indian - two of them are actual brothers.

Not much demand for older kids of any ethnic background. Those kids were all at high risk for aging out of the system. Instead they got a loving home and family. Definitely not lax parents either - those kids went to church, went to school, did their homework and learned manners and respect. They grew up to be good people.

Oh and they didn’t “turn the kids gay.” The couple now has a bunch of grandkids and their first great grandchild.

Click to expand...

Christians are not protesting or demanding non-Christian agencies be decertified and blocked from helping children. The Gay Mafia are demanding Christians not be allowed to operate foster car and adoption agencies.

The only bigots in this scenario are liberals and LGBTQ lobbyist. It's not like there is a shortage of kids. The queer lobby hates Christians more than they care about children in need.

Step 1: Republicans get into power and then cut taxes as much as possible on the rich and big corporations.

Step 2: Republicans brag about how the economy has improved on essentially borrowed money since reduced tax income means that more money must be borrowed to offset the loss in taxes. Interest will then have to be paid on that borrowed money for a long, long time, thus reducing the ability of the government to invest in people and programs.

Step 3: Republicans suddenly notice that less tax money is coming in, and cut government spending on programs for the poor and middle class.

Step 4: Republicans undermine unions as much as possible to try and help their corporate friends pay as little as possible in wages. Over the long term, this results in regular people having very little money. Republicans also resist raising the minimum wage and resist all wage increases as much as possible. This also results in the poor and middle class having little money over the long term. Income inequality expands. The well off get richer, and everyone else gets poorer.

Step 5: Republicans avoid much-needed infrastructure spending programs, which would help the nation by providing jobs, growing the economy, and increasing the amount of taxable income which could help pay off debt. Republicans tend to avoid big infrastructure programs because they have convinced themselves that, in general, Government Spending Is Bad—except on certain things like expensive military weapons, in which case, they seem to believe that one can never spend too much.

Step 6: Republicans watch in total surprise as businesses start collapsing, and more and more regular people start defaulting on their mortgages, bank loans, and credit cards. Since most businesses cater to the poor and middle class, when regular people do not have any money, most businesses end up with fewer customers, and thus, little money. Welcome to another Republican created recession.

Step 7: Republicans do little to fix the recession, since fixing the economy would involve reversing what the Republicans actually did while in office. Eventually, voters put Democrats back into power, hoping that the Democrats will be able to fix the bad economy. The Democrats increase Government spending with an infrastructure program to counteract the economic slowdown caused by the Republicans. Republicans scream bloody murder about how the Democrats are creating government debt with their spending. As Republicans do this, they ignore the huge amount of government debt which was created by 1) Republican tax cuts, 2) the economic slowdown caused by Republican cuts in spending to pay for their tax cuts, and 3) the economic slowdown caused by Republicans fighting unions, fighting wage increases, and fighting all efforts to implement big infrastructure programs.

Step 8: The economy slowly recovers due to measures which were both pushed for by Democrats and fought against by Republicans every step of the way.

Step 9: After years of economic improvement under Democratic leadership, Republicans spend countless millions of dollars trying to convince voters that they will do a better job with the economy than the Democrats did. Voters eventually vote the Republicans into power.

I love when pro-choicers ask pro-lifers what they’re doing to help kids who are born. First, that’s not an argument to kill a child. Second, chances are, a lot more than you

Click to expand...

First of all, I was specifically addressing your comment about adoption and foster agencies who won't consider same-sex parent homes. There would be more homes available if they did, and more children in need would be placed.

A fetus is a potential person, not a "child". A lot of those early abortion embryos won't even make it full term regardless. Odds are 7% of them will die before they're out of infancy in GA, OH, AL

I put my money where my mouth is - if I see a need, I chip in. You?

Want to end abortion? Since you didn't like my suggestion that men / boys should be educated to always use protection unless both partners were planning a baby*, how about vasectomies for all males old enough to have sex? No muss, no fuss, reversible when you plan to have a family.

Then you just have to argue about the medically necessary ones.

* And before you start with the "but but but the women should take care of that" ...Not all women are candidates for the more effective forms of female birth control. They have nasty side effects - risk of blood clots, stroke, elevated breast cancer risk, etc.

Even suggesting that someone should be forced to bear a rape or incest baby is abhorrent. Suggesting they should because "God is sovereign", in a government meeting, is someone pushing their religious beliefs into government policy.

Even Sharia law isn't as strict as a some of these abortion bills. (Islam allows it up to 4 months.)

First of all, I was specifically addressing your comment about adoption and foster agencies who won't consider same-sex parent homes. There would be more homes available if they did, and more children in need would be placed.

Click to expand...

Not true. There are less homes available because queer lobby hates Christians and stupid liberals pretend just being a Christian and following your faith is a violation of the #1A and non-establishment clause.

A fetus is a potential person, not a "child". A lot of those early abortion embryos won't even make it full term regardless.

Click to expand...

IT IS A HUMAN. HUMAN FETUS, BABY. >>> >> not a dog, or a fish. << <<<< . It's a human before he or she is born, and human after.

Odds are 7% of them will die before they're out of infancy in GA, OH, AL

Click to expand...

So we should kill more of them? Every successful abortion ends a human life. He or she was a live human baby before it's was murdered.

I put my money where my mouth is - if I see a need, I chip in. You?

Want to end abortion? Since you didn't like my suggestion that men / boys should be educated to always use protection unless both partners were planning a baby*, how about vasectomies for all males old enough to have sex? No muss, no fuss, reversible when you plan to have a family.

Click to expand...

We've been over this several times. A man is responsible for care of the mother while pregnant and for the baby after birth. <<<< that's the law in every state.

You are literally making up arguments I've never said.

Then you just have to argue about the medically necessary ones.

* And before you start with the "but but but the women should take care of that" ...Not all women are candidates for the more effective forms of female birth control. They have nasty side effects - risk of blood clots, stroke, elevated breast cancer risk, etc.

Click to expand...

We should kill millions of unborn human babies because of outliers or something.

In 2013, this thread:
"in relation to the population of the United States, the number of individuals that actually think a woman who has been raped has any obligation is insignificantly insignificant."
"Quick, make the conservative state he is pro life, so we can suggest through innuendo that he wants raped women to raise the rape-offspring." Phhhtt.https://www.namepros.com/threads/the-nps-official-usa-political-thread.764342/page-57#post-4494219
Now 2019, they're all gonna come out of their holes to demand a rapist's fetus be protected and a woman be forced to take a heavier toll on her body and mind....

It was still referring to abortions for rape, an issue that should have been fully settled long ago, but not by Americans .....Always lagging behind, so hard to figure it out
No use arguing that one anymore
Lost cause apparently

It was still referring to abortions for rape, an issue that should have been fully settled long ago, but not by Americans .....Always lagging behind, so hard to figure it out
No use arguing that one anymore
Lost cause apparently